Vintage vs. Pristine Anamorphic: When do imperfections serve the story?

Hey everyone, Amara here. I'm deep into pre-production for a new documentary that explores generational trauma, and I'm really grappling with a lens choice. I've been experimenting with my FX3 and a set of older, somewhat 'flawed' Russian anamorphics I managed to rent. They have amazing horizontal flares and a fall-off that feels really organic, almost melancholic.

My DP is pushing for an ARRI Master Anamorphic setup, arguing for the technical perfection and sharpness, which I get. For our interviews especially, he wants clean, clinical imagery. But there's something about the C-series Panavision looks I see online (that warmth, the subtle breathing, even the slightly softer edges) that I think could really enhance the emotional texture of some of our archival recreations and observational scenes. It feels intrinsically more 'human' for a story about imperfections and lived experience.

So, my genuine question is: when does consciously choosing a lens with character, even 'flaws' like a vintage Panavision C-Series, actually serve the narrative better than the undeniable technical superiority of something like an ARRI Master Anamorphic?